Location via proxy:   [ UP ]  
[Report a bug]   [Manage cookies]                
Scribd Logo
Upload

Welcome to Scribd!

  • 302 views

    Bustos v. Lucero Digest

    Uploaded by

    Gabriel Cruz
    The petitioner filed a motion with the Court of First Instance of Pampanga requesting that the record be remanded to the justice of the peace court so that he could cross-examine the complainant and witnesses. The justice of the peace court refused this request based on Section 11 of Rule 108. The Supreme Court ruled that Section 11 does not curtail the discretion of the justice of the peace court to pursue actions to bring out the truth. While the decision was split, the majority found the justice of the peace court committed abuse of discretion in refusing to allow cross-examination. The petition was ultimately dismissed.

    Copyright:

    © All Rights Reserved
    Download as DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd

    Bustos v. Lucero Digest

    Uploaded by

    Gabriel Cruz
    302 views1 page
    The petitioner filed a motion with the Court of First Instance of Pampanga requesting that the record be remanded to the justice of the peace court so that he could cross-examine the complainant and witnesses. The justice of the peace court refused this request based on Section 11 of Rule 108. The Supreme Court ruled that Section 11 does not curtail the discretion of the justice of the peace court to pursue actions to bring out the truth. While the decision was split, the majority found the justice of the peace court committed abuse of discretion in refusing to allow cross-examination. The petition was ultimately dismissed.

    Original Description:

    blerp blerp blerp

    Original Title

    Bustos v. Lucero digest

    Copyright

    © © All Rights Reserved

    Available Formats

    DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd

    Did you find this document useful?

    Is this content inappropriate?

    The petitioner filed a motion with the Court of First Instance of Pampanga requesting that the record be remanded to the justice of the peace court so that he could cross-examine the complainant and witnesses. The justice of the peace court refused this request based on Section 11 of Rule 108. The Supreme Court ruled that Section 11 does not curtail the discretion of the justice of the peace court to pursue actions to bring out the truth. While the decision was split, the majority found the justice of the peace court committed abuse of discretion in refusing to allow cross-examination. The petition was ultimately dismissed.

    Copyright:

    © All Rights Reserved
    Download as DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd
    Download as docx, pdf, or txt
    302 views1 page

    Bustos v. Lucero Digest

    Uploaded by

    Gabriel Cruz
    The petitioner filed a motion with the Court of First Instance of Pampanga requesting that the record be remanded to the justice of the peace court so that he could cross-examine the complainant and witnesses. The justice of the peace court refused this request based on Section 11 of Rule 108. The Supreme Court ruled that Section 11 does not curtail the discretion of the justice of the peace court to pursue actions to bring out the truth. While the decision was split, the majority found the justice of the peace court committed abuse of discretion in refusing to allow cross-examination. The petition was ultimately dismissed.

    Copyright:

    © All Rights Reserved
    Download as DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd
    Download as docx, pdf, or txt
    of 1

    DOMINADOR B. BUSTOS vs. ANTONIO G.

    LUCERO
    G.R. No. L-2068, October 20, 1948

    FACTS:
    The petitioner herein, an accused in a criminal case, filed a motion with the Court of First
    Instance of Pampanga after he had been bound over to that court for trial, praying that
    the record of the case be remanded to the justice of the peace court of Masantol, the
    court of origin, in order that the petitioner might cross-examine the complainant and her
    witnesses in connection with their testimony, on the strength of which warrant was
    issued for the arrest of the accused. The accused, assisted by counsel, appeared at the
    preliminary investigation. In that investigation, the justice of the peace informed him of
    the charges and asked him if he pleaded guilty or not guilty, upon which he entered the
    plea of not guilty. Then his counsel moved that the complainant present her evidence so
    that she and her witnesses could be examined and cross-examined in the manner and
    form provided by law. The fiscal and the private prosecutor objected, invoking section 11
    of rule 108, and the objection was sustained. In view thereof, the accused's counsel
    announced his intention to renounce his right to present evidence, and the justice of the
    peace forwarded the case to the court of first instance.
    ISSUE:
    Whether or not the Justice of the Peace court of Masantol committed grave abuse of
    discretion in refusing to grant the accused's motion to return the record.

    HELD:
    Evidence is the mode and manner of proving competent facts and circumstances on
    which a party relies to establish the fact in dispute in judicial proceedings. It is
    fundamentally a procedural law. The Supreme Court that section 11 of Rule 108 does
    not curtail the sound discretion of the justice of the peace on the matter. Said section
    defines the bounds of the defendant's right in the preliminary investigation, there is
    nothing in it or any other law restricting the authority, inherent in a court of justice, to
    pursue a course of action reasonably calculated to bring out the truth.
    The foregoing decision was rendered by a divided court. The minority went farther than
    the majority and denied even any discretion on the part of the justice of the peace or
    judge holding the preliminary investigation to compel the complainant and his witnesses
    to testify anew.
    Upon the foregoing considerations, the present petition is dismissed with costs against
    the petitioner.

    Lower courts are in charge of getting evidence from the counsels


    appellate courts rule based on the evidence na kinuha sa lower courts

    You might also like